Cultishness...

[_Doctor Scratch]

Your point early on in this thread was that familiarity with or emersion in "counter-cult" ideologies was "strongly associated" with apostate hostility, was it not?

Yeah, and "apostate hostility" is quite a different concept from "general antagonism."

Is it? By "general antagonism," do you mean antagonism from what Lewis calls the "dominant culture"?

When I tried to point out to you that the scholarship also says that apostate anger relates to the "position" of the NRM within the larger society, you accused me of 'misrepresenting' the scholarship!

That's because it doesn't relate to the "'position' of the NRM within the larger society," but to the apostate's perception of the NRM's location vis-à-vis their own location. You were misrepresenting the scholarship, and you continue to do so.

Quote the passages that support your view.

It's funny how you always claim that you're being "misrepresented" as you hit the Eject Button.

No, what I do is show that I'm misrepresented and then reach a point where I see no value in trying to reason with someone who flatly refuses to honestly engage what I'm saying.

Actually, you misrepresented yourself. You said you 'didn't have time' to keep up this discussion, and yet you've posted, what? a half dozen more times or so?

[_Kevin Graham]

It is a double-standard, although there are plenty of people who assert their identification as "anti-Mormon," so the situation's a bit different. Irrespective, I'm not making that argument, so it's not really relevant.

I don't know of anyone who likes to be called that. In fact, if you watch the panel discussion between Dehlin and Gordon, the lady mentions that there was a call for anti-Mormons and no one responded. Not because they weren't, but because they didn't like to be identified as such.

And I try to use "critic."

Yes, you do. You're way different from folks like Pahoran, who seems to have committed himself to using it at least three times per post.

New Religious Movement is the term that has become commonplace within the academy, and I think it works just fine.

But that doesn't even begin to convey the attributes intended to be conveyed by the word cult. Not all New Religious Movements share those attributes. Mormonism is quite uinique. In many ways it seeks to control the life of those in the "movement." It spies on them. It expects conformity and loyalty to a disturbing degree. It engages in questionable practices in secret and punishes those who would dare talk about them to those outside the "movement." Somehow New Religious Movement doesn't quite speak to the same kinds of things as does the word "cult."

The problem is there is no word similar to cult in the same way "critic" is similar to "anti."

[_sethpayne]

New Religious Movement is the term that has become commonplace within the academy, and I think it works just fine.

Does NRM convey the idea that the group is dysfunctional and harmful to some of its members?

Not necessarily. The NRM (as well as all societal institutions) are identified as either subversive, contenstant, or allegiant. According to the work that came mostly from analyzing counter-cult movements of the 1970s most NRMs would be perceived as subversive and therefore harfmful to some members.

HOWEVER, the academic literature is very clear that the placement of an institution in the subversive, allegiant, and contenstant catetory is a subjective judgement made by members of society. I have argued elsewhere that this is a weakness of this model. It doesn't account for the fact that some institutions, like the LDS Church, are seen as all three depending on who you ask!

Most members of American society would likely see the LDS Church as contestant.

Seth

[_RockSlider]

Kish,

I'm really late to this thread, but would like to comment, in regards to your views on not judging the church for what it used to be.

If there is anything of concern or merit about an organization being considered a cult, I'd suggest it would be based on negative impacts on individuals within that organization. The fairly extensive "changes" in the teachings that I have seen in my lifetime, mostly focused in the last 20 years might speak volumes to the true claims of the church, but of course that's a different topic.

My gripe, and claim to rightfully call the Church a "cult lite" is based on personal damage inflected on my wife, my children and myself, raised and raising pre-1990 Mormonism, along the Mormon Corridor, in a very Chapel Mormon small town (Heber, Utah).

I don't give a darn what the new mainstream Mormonism might be. I do hope it truly intends to actually be mainstream and continue to move away from its cult lite ways, and hurting people.

However, I'm still skeptical that it is all a missionary, sales force front with no real intention of killing old "Chapel Mormon" ways, or ridding itself of the milk/meat concepts of bring them into the fold, and indoctinate them later.

For those that might simply throw out there; the church does not teach and/or believe that anymore, does little to address the damage already done.

[_Yoda]

Kish,

I'm really late to this thread, but would like to comment, in regards to your views on not judging the church for what it used to be.

If there is anything of concern or merit about an organization being considered a cult, I'd suggest it would be based on negative impacts on individuals within that organization. The fairly extensive "changes" in the teachings that I have seen in my lifetime, mostly focused in the last 20 years might speak volumes to the true claims of the church, but of course that's a different topic.

My gripe, and claim to rightfully call the Church a "cult lite" is based on personal damage inflected on my wife, my children and myself, raised and raising pre-1990 Mormonism, along the Mormon Corridor, in a very Chapel Mormon small town (Heber, Utah).

I don't give a darn what the new mainstream Mormonism might be. I do hope it truly intends to actually be mainstream and continue to move away from its cult lite ways, and hurting people.

However, I'm still skeptical that it is all a missionary, sales force front with no real intention of killing old "Chapel Mormon" ways, or ridding itself of the milk/meat concepts of bring them into the fold, and indoctinate them later.

For those that might simply throw out there; the church does not teach and/or believe that anymore, does little to address the damage already done.

I agree that the Church needs to address the damage done to others.

I am sorry you went through such pain.

[_RockSlider]

I am sorry you went through such pain.

meh ... who considers it pain? It's just family, cultural Mormonism, our friends, our way of life. We love them, do the best we can, live and learn.

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.